It's my understanding that after the Western Romans, life in non-Roman Europe generally deteriorated (a process that seemed to have started before 'the fall' even?), knowledge was lost, and the civilizations in the area became less advanced. Hence "the dark ages".
Even if the "dark ages" term has been exaggerated and misused, is it thought to be improper, misleading or inaccurate to consider the idea at all?
hi! You're likely to get a few responses from medievalists here, but to get you started, here are a few references in the FAQ section The 'Dark Ages'
life in non-Roman Europe generally deteriorated
Consider this question: who loses when empires break apart? Or in other words, for whom does life deteriorate? Generally speaking, it is the aristocracy, those who benefit most from the system. That is not to say that the peasantry did not in a way, but early medievalist Chris Wickham has argued that the contraction of interregional systems of exchange and the it's affect on the roman taxation system actually went a long way in alleviating the tax burden on the the early medieval peasantry and saw the rise of the early medieval village as a mot autonomous social unit. In other words, the standard of living, depending on what values you emphasize, rose for the peasantry of Western Europe.
That is not to discount the effects of deurbanization, the decline of literary centers, and the temporary destabilization caused by war, but the general point is that there is never a single narrative. Historians avoid "the Dark Ages" because it presents a broad and monochromatic understanding of a complex period that ultimately shapes how we approach out sourses and our understanding of the period.